Date of filing: 24.07.2017 Date of disposal: 31.12.2018
Complainant: Sri Ratan Biswas, S/O-Lt. Nagendra Kishor Biswas, of Fulhjore, Durgapur-6, P.S. - New Township, Dist. - Paschim Barddhaman.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: Sri Jagabandhu Roy, S/o- Lt Tarini Kumar Roy, of B-4-Y, Sagarbhanga Colony, Durgapur, P.O. & P.S.-Durgapur, Dist. -Paschim Barddhaman, Pin-713211.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Santi Ranjan Harzra.
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directing a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- to the complainant as refund, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
The Complainant’s case in short is that he made an agreement with the O.P. on 11.11.2014 to purchase a quarter at V.K. Nagar, Durgapur-10, worth Rs.7,50,000/- as its total value. According to the agreement, the O.P. was liable to hand it over within three months from the date of agreement. The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively on 12.11.2014 and 14.11.2014 to the O.P. drawing out through cheque from Oriental Bank of Commerce. Those cheques were enchased by the O.P on 17.11.2014. Even after completion of three months, the O.P. did not hand over the said quarter to the complainant. The complainant requested him several times, but all were in vain. After that as per request of the O.P, the complainant made a part-payment of Rs.30, 000/- through cheque on 21.09.2015 and it was encashed by the O.P. on 23.09.2015.
After that the O.P issued a receipt on 10 rupees non-judicial stamp paper on 20.09.2015 in favour of the complainant. By this time, the complainant had already paid Rs.2,80,000/- out of 7,50,000/- and the remaining Rs.4,70,000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession of the said quarter by the way of registration. But the O.P. did not had over the quarter even after several knockings by the complainant. At last being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the service of the O.P. the complainant had no longer any interest to purchase the quarter from the O.P and requested them to refund Rs.2,80,000/- as early as possible. But this time, too, the O.P did not bother to make a single response to the complainant. Then the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P. to either hand over the quarter or to make a refund of Rs.2,80,000/- within 15 days from the date of the receipt which was dated on 20.05.2017 but it also was in vain.
The O.P., in his W.V. has stated a different story. He said that he had never any intention to transfer the said quarter in favour of the complainant. According to him, the complainant was in money lending business, without having any license. The O.P. was in financial crisis in the year 2014 and for that reason he approached to the present complainant and requested to lend an amount of 2,50,000/- for three months. At that time the complainant agreed to lend the money of such amount to the O.P subject to signing an agreement which was drafted and prepared by the complainant on a 100/- rupees non-judicial stamp paper. The O.P. put signature on the said agreement as per the instructions of the complainant and without going through the contains of the same. The O.P. for the first time, came to know about the contents of the said agreement only after receiving of summon of the case and he became astonished on going through the said agreement. The O.P. also stated that he had returned Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant in the presence of one Debobrata Ghosh and some other reputed persons of the locality. In the W.V., the O.P further stated that in the month of September 2015, he again took a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant signing over an agreement on good faith, without going through the contains of the same. But due to financial instability, the O.P failed to repay the said loan. So, the relationship in between the complainant and the O.P. got damaged and for that reason the complainant sent legal notice and filed this case on some false and flimsy grounds for the purpose of harassing the O.P. The O.P. also stated that at present he was an employee of MAMC Durgapur and quarter No.B2-119/4, situated at V.K. Nagar, Durgapur-10 was allotted in his favour and it was never promised to hand over the complainant.
In the light of contention of both parties and considering the documents along with evidence, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
Points for Consideration
- Is the complainant a consumer as per Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the said complainant?
- Has the O.P. any deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record and also heard the argument at a length advanced by both the parties.
Point No.1:- From the discussion above, undoubtedly, it proves that the complainant is a customer of the O.P. in terms of the provision of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2:- The Office place of trade of the O.P’s is within the district Burdwan, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. The value of the case is within the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.
Point No.3 & 4:- Undisputedly the complainant had an agreement with the O.P. and he had deposited all documents related to the agreement. Perused the documents filed by the complainant. On the other hand, the O.P. failed to produce necessary documents in accordance to his statements. He did not even produce any proof written from the witnesses according to him in presence of whom he had returned the money to the complainant. So, with all the evidences, the complainant succeeds to contest the case.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint being No.130/2017 is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. with a direction to the O.P to pay Rs.2,80,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the Opposite Party is liable to pay interest and the rate of 12% per annum for the default period as penal interest. The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this order as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
